Doing the Two State Shuffle…….

I wouldn’t jump to conclusions yet. The Israeli PM, Benjamin Netanyahu correctly states Israel’s desire for a comprehensive peace with the Palestinians and the greater Arab world, but it would be a mistake to conclude that he views implementing a two state solution just for the sake of political expediency, like the Apologizer-In-Chief.

It might not have look like much to the untrained eye & ear, but the Israeli PM’s insistence that in order for a just and lasting peace to be achieved, Israel’s enemies are going to have to publicly admit that they recognize Israel as a Jewish state, which is not the same as just recognizing the existence of Israel.

But the whole crux to the conflict between the Arabs and the Jewish state, is the religious supremacy of Islam towards Jews, as well as the highly disfunctional (and suicidal) Palestinian regime. First of all, having a non-Muslim state in the midst of the Islamic world is an affront to Muslim thinking, which to many, such a state conflicts with the words of their prophet.

Acceptance of the Jewish state of Israel -which deserves to live in peace and in equality in the region- is a deal breaker for the majority of Israel’s principle foes, and something that will not only keep them away from the bargaining table, but from ever making a true and honest peace with any Israeli government.

But here’s another dilemma. I have always maintained the political position that, until the Palestinians are no longer a danger to themselves, they will continue to remain an existential threat to the state of Israel. If there is no development from the ground up in the building of a just and democratic society, built upon the rule of just law (based on western principles), then, even with their admission of acceptance of a Jewish state of Israel, the war will continue.

Barry Rubin’s salient points concerning the genuineness of Israel’s ”partners for peace” in a recent article viewable at the Gloria Center, goes to the heart of what ails any kind of “peace process”. What can you possibly hope to achieve, realistically, with a side that has no intention of ending the conflict, even though it signs a piece of paper. Just think of Yasser Arafat and his open commitment to ending violence once and for all and that stupid Nobel Peace prize in his hands….and what happened after that. KGS

So far, it doesn’t look like making peace will diminish that existential threat. Nor does it mean that a “two-state solution” will end the conflict either.

We’d like to make peace with Israel but if we do Iran, Syria, Hizballah, and some of our followers will kill us, say the Lebanese moderates. And any way we’ll probably be out of power soon. We don’t dare do anything.

We’re really eager to make peace with Israel, says the Palestinian Authority. It just doesn’t want to make peace with us. Our regime is too weak to make peace and any way much of the leadership is pretty hardline. The difference between Fatah and Hamas is not so much one of moderation versus radicalism (yes, there are differences on that point also) but rather whether Palestine will be nationalist or Islamist. more here.

The two-state model found acceptance among the Israeli public between the Oslo accords of 1993 and the new round of Palestinian violence in 2000. On the surface, to be sure, “two state” seems yet strong among Israelis:

But many Israelis, including Netanyahu, disbelieve that Palestinians will either construct a state or abandon irredentism. Netanyahu prefers to shelve “two states” and focus instead on institution-building, economic development, and quality-of-life improvements for Palestinians. To this, the Arab states, Palestinians, European governments, and the Obama administration near-unanimously respond with vociferous hostility.

Question: Will differences over the two-state solution prompt a crisis in U.S.-Israel relations?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sign me up for the newsletter!

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Melting pot societies are the only way to secure the individual…

Multiculturalism is a gross failure. Assimilation, where celebrating one’s own heritage but as a full member of the dominant culture, wins.

There Is No Such Thing As White Cultural Heritage. The West’s Legacy Is Open To All…

There’s No Common Cultural Legacy For The Alt-Right

Still, is there something to it? Is there a common heritage that will cover El Greco and Hume and Dostoyevsky? Is there one that can include the Jacobites and the Jacobins? There is, but it is not racial, and white supremacists reject it because it rejects them. The unifying heritage of Europe is religious and philosophical. It is Jerusalem and Athens, in one famous formulation. Christian religion and Greek philosophy, filtered through Roman law and culture, are the foundation of European culture. The tensions, agreements, developments and settlements between these have shaped the Western world, and these roots of Western civilization are not congenial to white supremacy.

Christianity is universal in its message and Jewish in its origins. For centuries after its founding, Christianity’s center was the Mediterranean world, including Asia Minor and North Africa. Christianity has never been defined by race, and locally-grown racist heresies are only sustainable among those ignorant of Christianity’s teachings, origins and history.

Greek philosophy is likewise ill-suited to serve as a basis for white identity. It is either too universal (addressing the human condition in general) or too local—none of us live as citizens of an ancient Greek polis. Later philosophical developments in Europe, such as the philosophies of the Enlightenment, likewise tend to be too universal for white supremacists seeking a tribal identity. As for the scientific revolution that developed within Western culture (albeit with much borrowed from outside Europe), math doesn’t care what color someone is.

Trending Israeli News…

IDF prepares to demolish Jerusalem terrorist's house
Army units make initial preparations for demolition of terrorist's house, following murder of Adiel Coleman in the Old City of Jerusalem.Man murdered in Jerusalem attack: Adiel Kolman
Jewish man who was murdered in attack in the Old City of Jerusalem identified as Adiel Kolman, a resident of Kochav Hashahar.Murderer of Rabbi Itamar Ben Gal caught
Israeli forces arrest Israeli Arab responsible for the murder of Rabbi Itamar Ben Gal near Ariel last month.ISRAELI AIR FORCE STRIKES HAMAS TERROR TARGET IN GAZA STRIP
"The attack was carried out in response to the placement of explosive devices on the border fence."

SECULARISM AND RELIGION: THE ONSLAUGHT AGAINST THE WEST’S MORAL CODES

War is being waged against Western culture from within which is in essence a war against Christianity and its moral origins in the Hebrew Bible. By attacking these Biblical foundations in the name of reason and human rights, the culture warriors of secularism are sawing off the branch on which they sit. The only way to defend Western civilisation is to reaffirm and restore its Biblical foundations. My argument is a development of ideas I first explored in my 2012 book The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth and Power.

We are living in an era which extols reason, science and human rights. These are said to be essential for progress, a civilised society and the betterment of humanity. Religion is said to be their antithesis, the source instead of superstitious mumbo-jumbo, oppression and backward-thinking.

Some of this hostility is being driven by the perceived threat from Islamic terrorism and the Islamisation of Western culture. However, this animus against religion has far deeper roots and can be traced back to what is considered the birthplace of Western reason, the 18th-century Enlightenment.

Actually, it goes back specifically to the French Enlightenment. In England and Scotland, the Enlightenment developed reason and political liberty within the framework of Biblical belief. In France, by contrast, anti-clericalism morphed into fundamental hostility to Christianity and to religion itself.

“Ecrasez l’infame,” said Voltaire (crush infamy) — the infamy to which he referred being not just the Church but Christianity, which he wanted to replace with the religion of reason, virtue and liberty, “drawn from the bosom of nature”.

Perfecting society

But this Enlightenment did not remove religion so much as pervert it. It took millenarian fantasies, the idea that the perfection of the world was at hand, and it secularised them. Instead of God producing heaven on earth, it would be mankind which would bring that about. Reason would create the perfect society and “progress” was the process by which utopia would be attained.

Middle East expert Mordechai Kedar: To talk of peace in the Middle East is akin to begging to keep your head connected to your shoulders…

What mainstream Islam really teaches, what they believe…

Trending European News..

SAS sniper kills senior ISIS fighter with 'one in a million' night-time headshot from a mile away close to the Syrian border
SAS sniper kills senior ISIS fighter with 'one in a million' shot
The marksman is said to have killed the terrorist with a 'head shot' close to the Syrian border having been given a window of just 15 seconds. He is understood to be a sergeant with the SAS G-Sqaudron and a veteran of operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, where he is understood to have recorded as many as 100 kills.Rees-Mogg’s Ultimatum to May: If Britain Bends to EU on Trade Policy It Will Become ‘Joke Nation’Report: Czechs Mulling Moving Embassy to Jerusalem
TEL AVIV – The Czech Republic has begun investigating the possibility of following the U.S.’s lead and moving its embassy to Jerusalem as a result of a diplomatic campaign waged by Israel, Channel 10 reported on Saturday.Danish Social Democrat leader faces criticism after 'using ethnicity' in Facebook debate
Mette Frederiksen has been criticised after she appeared to suggest a commenter was less entitled to take part in debate because of her immigrant background.

Daniel Greenfield explains Islam 101:

"Every devout Muslim is an "Islamist". Islam is not a personal religion. It is a religion of the public space. A "moderate" Muslim would have to reject Islam as a religion of the public space, as theocracy, and that secularism would be a rejection of Islam.

Nothing in Islam exists apart from anything else. While liberals view culture and religion as a buffet that they can pick and choose from, it is a single integrated system. If you accept one part, you must accept the whole. Once you accept any aspect of Islam, you must accept its legal system and once you accept that, you must accept its governance and once you accept that, you lose your rights.''

Trending Middle East News…

Republican Senator expects Trump to pull out of Iran deal
Senator Bob Corker says he expects Trump to pull out of the Iran nuclear agreement in May.Greenblatt: Hamas is burying Gaza's future
Trump’s envoy condemns Samaria terrorist attack, blasts Hamas for welcoming it.Analysis: Here's how to deal with the barbaric Syrian regime
Electrocuting children, turning hospitals into slaughterhouses, using chemical weaponry - how long can this be allowed to continue?(Thanks to Obama for giving a time date for US departure)
Analysts: Iraq War Legacy Marked by Failure, Some Success

Jenin: Massacring Truth (This documentary was made long before the term #FakeNews got started…